beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.19 2018가단302182

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2014, E and three others (hereinafter “E, etc.”) concluded a lease agreement with F, the Plaintiff’s father, and with respect to a real estate agent’s office located on the left side of the front floor among the first floor neighborhood living facilities of the building owned by E, etc. (hereinafter “instant building”), a deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000.

B. F, in collaboration with G, operated a real estate brokerage business in the instant store. At the time of the conclusion of the said lease agreement, G paid KRW 33,00,000 for the premium to E, etc., and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,000,000 for the premium to G on July 23, 2014, while the Plaintiff agreed to succeed to the lessee status of the instant store, and entered into a lease agreement with E, etc. by setting the deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000 for the instant store in the name of F, monthly rent of KRW 1,20,000 for the instant store, monthly rent of KRW 1,20,000 for the period from August 1, 2014 to March 31, 2016.

C. On the other hand, on June 30, 2015, E, etc. sold the instant building to the Defendants, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 4, 2015 (Defendant B, C, Defendant D 2/8 shares), and the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants by setting the deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000, and the period from July 31, 2015 to July 30, 2017.

On January 8, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendants, and ordered the Defendants to provide the instant store.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 7, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On January 2017, while the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was running real estate brokerage business at the instant store, the Plaintiff requested the Defendants to order the order of the store of this case, and two persons who intend to become a new lessee to recover the premium.